Nikon range - D200 replacement ?

[Turn7]

The whole range looks a bit confusing to me these days.

What would you consider to be the natural successor to a D200 - the 300S or the 7100 ?

Bit out of touch these days, and whilst I love my 200, its not very good at low light stuff.

[RobDickinson]

D200 is old school nikon. There all a ton better, D300s being the poorest though as its ancient.

D7000 is the best crop nikon make now
Or consider the D700/D800.

Theres probably a D600 and a d400 coming out soon.

[Turn7]

Thanks Rob.

Whats makes the 7000 so good ? Im not keen on having a movie function in a DSLR as to me it smacks of jack of all trades, master of none.

I know the 200 is old skool now, but it fits my hands perfectly and I know where everything is.

[RobDickinson]

7000 has a fantastic sensor, and decent performance , viewfinder, af etc. its technically a step down from the d200 (d90 level) but I guess that depends on what you want.

Dont worry about movie functions you dont have to use it and its a byproduct of live view which is very very handy.

[andy-xr]

Turn7 said:

Thanks Rob.

Whats makes the 7000 so good ? Im not keen on having a movie function in a DSLR as to me it smacks of jack of all trades, master of none.

I know the 200 is old skool now, but it fits my hands perfectly and I know where everything is.

If you dont fancy buying a D800 (or maybe a 700) then the D7000 is probably best in terms of sensor size, performance, focal points, AF system and a few other tricks (dual SD cards)

There are some niggles with it, as Rob's pointed out it's in that consumery range of Nikon products. The bigger boys you get PASM, wheras the D7000 has scene modes, 2 auto modes and an auto-scene set up. Some people dont like that. It sill has PASM of course

ISO button is part of the rear buttons rather than up top, and swapping the AF system around needs 2 hands. If thats going to bother you then D300(s) upwards is the way to go, but they're comparatively ancient now and will be a lot noisier at higher ISO's. I can shoot at 3200 no probs on the D7000. Used to be able to shoot at 5000 all night long on the D700. The D300 I didnt like taking past ISO1600, 800 ideally.

Guess it depends what your use is going to be

[anonymous-user]

I agree with all the above.

I upgraded to a D7000 recently and I'm extremely impressed.

I'm now shooting 'paid stuff' now as well as for a hobby, and I wanted the best Nikon crop sensor body I could get my hands on (I have a load of Nikon fit DX and FX lenses).

The D7000 really blew me away with it's dynamic range, fast focusing even on bigger/older lenses like the 80-200 2.8, and low noise at higher ISO's. Some of my work is shooting in nightclubs and at night so the ISO handling was really important.

It's definitely marketed as a consumer/prosumer camera but it is packed with pro features like magnesium body, weather protection, twin-card slots, custom user shooting modes and so on.

Cracking camera in my option and a bargain at the price now.

[Turn7]

I dont like the look of the 7000 I will admit.

If you reckon the D300S is old, Id hate to think how you rate my poor little 200!

The 300 looks to have all the buttons in the right places, any rumours on a new version of it coming ?

Not in any desperate need, just seeing whats around, as the ISO performance does bug me.

[Simpo Two]

IMHO the D300 will go to ISO1600 satisfactorily compared to the D200 which I wouldn't take over 800. If 1600 is enough for your needs then the D300 should be fine - plus the screen is larger and higher-res and scrolls faster. I have an issue with the way it displays histograms and if shooting JPG I think they look over-processed, but that's a personal thing. Mine is relegated to the studio and serious snapping while the D200s bring in the bacon.

[Turn7]

I know you're a 200 disciple Simpo, and I do wonder if all I need is that wondrous bit of 2.8 glass you use tbh.

[Simpo Two]

Turn7 said:

I know you're a 200 disciple Simpo, and I do wonder if all I need is that wondrous bit of 2.8 glass you use tbh.

Quite possibly, fast lenses help to keep shutter speed up and/or ISO down. On top of that, you can minimise noise by getting the exposure right in camera (so you don't have to push it in PP) and for any key shots where I feel it's noticable, I can run Noise Ninja in PS. But that's for very few images from the gloomiest churches.

The Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8 is the wrong side of £1,000 but worth it. As well the speed, it's wide enough to operate in cramped areas and long enough to photograph people.

[NiceCupOfTea]

Turn7 said:

I dont like the look of the 7000 I will admit.

If you reckon the D300S is old, Id hate to think how you rate my poor little 200!

The 300 looks to have all the buttons in the right places, any rumours on a new version of it coming ?

Not in any desperate need, just seeing whats around, as the ISO performance does bug me.

The D200 took bloody good photos 5 years ago, and it still takes bloody good photos now!

My dad bought a D7000 to replace his D200 and loves it. I bought his old D200 to replace my D70S, and I love the D200. They still fetch good money so people still want them.

[Turn7]

NiceCupOfTea said:

Turn7 said:

I dont like the look of the 7000 I will admit.

If you reckon the D300S is old, Id hate to think how you rate my poor little 200!

The 300 looks to have all the buttons in the right places, any rumours on a new version of it coming ?

Not in any desperate need, just seeing whats around, as the ISO performance does bug me.

The D200 took bloody good photos 5 years ago, and it still takes bloody good photos now!

My dad bought a D7000 to replace his D200 and loves it. I bought his old D200 to replace my D70S, and I love the D200. They still fetch good money so people still want them.

I still love my 200, but I enjoy gig photograpgy, and its high ISO ability is let down by its age I think.

Or just maybe the glass.

Or.......just the organic interface!

[RobDickinson]

What do you find the upper limit of ISO on the D200?

have a look at this:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-C...

And this

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-C...

[Turn7]

Rob, I generally dont like going much higher than 800, but sometimes have to go to 1000/1250, but the results arent that great tbh. Add to the fat Im not the greatest processor either, Id like to get it right in camera.

I may perhaps be barking up the wrong tree, and in fact just need some glass more suited to the job in hand.

[RobDickinson]

What lenses do you have , what focal length do you need covered?

According to DXO mark (which despite its issues is worthwhile) the D200 has SNR of 28.7 at ISO 800.

The D7000 has 32.4, and 29.7 at ISO 1600, 26.7 at ISO 3200. (3db is about 1 stop), I;d suggest you would (given the extra resolution of the d7000) find ISO 3200 with proper processing an easy match for your current ISO 800.

The D800 has a SNR of 28db at ISO 6400... or an easy 3 stops better than the D200, but in reality it will be 4 or more.

If your shooting at f5.6 then a f2.8 lens will get you close to a D7000 improvement on its own.

A D7000 and 85/1.8 will get you about 5 stops over an f5.6 lens on a D200.

[Turn7]

Interesting stuff.

Currently prefer to use my 1.8 50mm, but have used the 18/70 3.5/5.4.

Simpos weapon of choice would be a nice thing to have, and as I said, may make more sense than replacing the body.

I see Sigma do some sensibly priced 2.8s at the 18/70 ish range, may try and track down a used one or even a hire.

[NiceCupOfTea]

RobDickinson said:

What lenses do you have , what focal length do you need covered?

According to DXO mark (which despite its issues is worthwhile) the D200 has SNR of 28.7 at ISO 800.

The D7000 has 32.4, and 29.7 at ISO 1600, 26.7 at ISO 3200. (3db is about 1 stop), I;d suggest you would (given the extra resolution of the d7000) find ISO 3200 with proper processing an easy match for your current ISO 800.

The D800 has a SNR of 28db at ISO 6400... or an easy 3 stops better than the D200, but in reality it will be 4 or more.

If your shooting at f5.6 then a f2.8 lens will get you close to a D7000 improvement on its own.

A D7000 and 85/1.8 will get you about 5 stops over an f5.6 lens on a D200.

Interesting post, thanks!

[RobDickinson]

Also - high ISO pictures often look flat (lacking pop ) on cameras with lower dynamic range ( you typically loose 1 stop DR per 1 stop of ISO).

The D200 has 11.4 DR at base ISO 100.

The D7000 has 13.8. Probably not of interest to you but... At ISO 800 thats 8.7 vs 10.9 , again the D7000 has 2+ stops of dynamic range on the d200. The D800 has as much DR at ISO 1600 as the D200 at ISo 100.

[DynoDad]

I recently bought a D5100 to use for a video shoot, but I'm so impressed with it that I'm using it to shoot stills (my main job) as well. Quality wise it's on a par with my D3, which is a few years old now, it's amazing how much technology has come on! It's almost as good as the D3 in terms of focussing, colour rendition and noise at high ISO.

I'm now giving serious consideration to replacing my D3 & D700 with a couple of D7000's, the quality is almost identical and the weight saving is enormous. Add on the 17-55/2.8 and you've got a cracking setup.

The D200 wasn't a great camera when it was new (I had a couple when they first came out), the D7000 would blow your mind. The D300s offers less performance for more size and money, I wouldn't touch it. One great thing about Nikon is that everything from the cheapest to the dearest works exactly the same, with the cheaper cameras there are a few less buttons and more menu functions but all the important stuff is where you expect.

[K12beano]

DynoDad said:

The D200 wasn't a great camera when it was new (I had a couple when they first came out), the D7000 would blow your mind. The D300s offers less performance for more size and money, I wouldn't touch it. One great thing about Nikon is that everything from the cheapest to the dearest works exactly the same, with the cheaper cameras there are a few less buttons and more menu functions but all the important stuff is where you expect.

I agree and disagree (good job we're all different!)

I didn't go for the D200, but preferred a secondhand D2X. In many ways the '200 was a better camera - and generally I would say that, at the time, and since, the D200 was a pretty decent camera and great value for money if you had bought one from five years ago.

The D7000 is brilliant - in some respects. It has the latest technology sensor, so that there is, at least in theory, just a fag-paper between any images taken on ANY of the latest bodies, providing we assume the optimum circumstances for the different sensors. And I think that's borne out in practice. i have seen lovely results in real-world use.

However, it is a big thing when it comes down to handling. And whilst the D7000 probably could blow my mind, I think personally I would have imploded into a black hole of fury if I had to live with one, because it's a fairly horrible little thing with nothing of real value falling to your fingertips..... (in comparison to even the less than perfect Dxoos and Dx series)

The D300 didn't offer a great step forward from the D200 and the D300s is aimed at wider horizons... and there I do agree .... so let's hope for a next generation "D200 replacement" as part of the latter-2012 announcements (with better-than-recent quality control from Nikon too!)